BrotherDan: I am guided by the Holy Spirit, will you take my writings as the word of god? Why not? Kind of circular isn't it? Why don't you take any of the other Holy books written over the course of time as the word of god? Funny how time and region decide what we believe as a whole...
Does Genesis 19 condemn Homosexuality?
leavingwt said, "How does one determine if his or her conduct is not fornication?"
I gotta tell ya bro, this doesn't come from me, I'm just relaying what I've learned.....
I read this book, "Sex in History" by Reay Tannehil....it says that many ancient cultures practiced "tantra", the Mayans, I think I remember Kamasutra, and others, I think in China, where they would be locked in sex for hours without spilling their semen. This is exactly what is taught in gnostic kabbalah, that until the semen is spilled, it's not fornication. They believed that the seminal fluid was sacred, because it carries the life principle in it (the sperm is symbolized by the Serpent) because it is capable of creating "soul". They believed that dropping one's load was equivalent to spilling their brains out, because when properly transmuted, instead of being spilled (even the Old Testament mentions something about this making someone "unclean until the evening" I think), it would lead to spiritual awakening. The sexual energy from the semen, the most powerful energy humans can generate, would drive its way up the kundalini in the spinal column by this transmutation, a little at a time, turning on the chakras one by one until finally activating the pineal gland and crown chakra.
So, to sum it up, according to these various cultures, fornication is spilling of the semen, not sex in itself.
Now for the bomb: According to the gnostic kabbalah, fornication is the mysterious sin against the holy spirit that Jesus said would never be forgiven in this age or the next. They say that a "virgin birth" is when someone gets pregnant by this tantra, from pre-ejaculation, which is supposed to be the prime sperm!
Needless to say, if this is true, we are ALL royally screwed.
brotherdan.....To quickly respond to your post about the laws in Deuteronomy, I have to disagree. The legislation only makes the distinction between rape and fornication if the woman is betrothed (v. 23-27); there her consent matters because she has already entered a legal contract that accords her fiance sole marital rights over her (and so she would be in breach of contact if she consents). There is no such distinction made in the law pertaining to unbetrothed girls (v. 28-29); it applies regardless of whether she consents to sex or not, as there is no separate law pertaining specifically to rape (as there is in the case of the betrothed). Her consent is irrelevant because only her father has the right to give consent to his daughter's virginity; the man violates her father's rights regardless of whether she is seduced, she seduces the man, or is raped. The law (which is worded in rather general terms) makes no distinction between these situations, for her father deserves compensation regardless.
The three laws in v. 22-27 concern violations against the man who has an exclusive marital right to the woman in question. The fourth law in v. 28-29 concerns a violation against the rights of her father. My point in referring to these laws, in fact, is to point out how sexual crimes involving women (whether rape or adultery) are construed in the ANE as crimes against the economic and social rights of men, which is relevant to the Sodom story because rape against women and rape against men are two very different things in ANE society.
The 21rst century BC Sumerian code of Ur-Nammu parallels the Holiness code and Deuteronomic code of the OT:
"If someone rapes a woman who is marriagable and is engaged to another citizen, then the sentence is death".
If one citizen rapes the slave of another who is marriagable, then the fine is one and two-thirds ounces silver."
The 18 century BC Sumerian code reads:
If one citizen rapes the daughter of another, while she is one the street without the knowledge of the father and mother of her housholdand he swears "I will marry her." then the father and her mother, without her consent, give her to the man who raped her as a wife.
The Hammurabi, Hittite and Middle Assyrian Codes all have parallels where in the protection is upon married or engaged women. Like Leolaia said the OT Laws and other ANE codes are rather consistantly focused upon ownership and household honor rather than the womans rights.
The sin of Sodom wasn't homosexuality or sexual depravity.
Ezekiel 16:49 says it was being arrogant, greedy, overfed and having no regard for the poor or needy.
That's more in line with Jesus than it is with fundamentalist, evangelical Christianity. So, which is right?
As for Lot and his willingness to let his daughters be raped, that speaks more about the man than it does about God. Genesis is documenting what happened, but doesn't make any moral commentary on it.
God saved Lot and his kin, not because of how righteous they were, but because of his grace.
God doesn't hate gay people; he hates arrogant fat arses who don't give a damn about the poor. This is borne out by the prophets who continually warned Israel, not about their disregard for the Law, but about their lack of social justice. And in the life of Jesus, who didn't condemn anyone for their sexuality, but who spoke up for the poor, marginalised and down-trodden in society.
How come so many "students of the Bible" miss that?
The issue with either taking the bible a sa whole or droppoing it altogether is that the bible was NOT written as a whole, nor was all of it written by "inspired men" and most of what was "assumed" as fact via tradtions have been shown to not be correct, such as Moses being the witer of the Pentateuch.
How do we know what parts to take as "God's word" and what parts is man word?
Fact is that ALL we have is the writings of falliable Men and while the Word of God is in there, it was written and copied and even altered by falliable men and we must recognize that.
The bible is also NOT just the "word of God written in Human words", it is also the history of a people and the political and historical prpoganda that goes hand in hand with that.
We need to understand that which is God's word, that which is Man's word, and that which is man's word that was made to seem God's word ( intenionnaly or not).
The bible warns us of this very thing through Jeremiah, Jesus and the warnings to TEST all that we are taught.
All this proves is that Jehovah is wicked. What business does he have in telling people how to live their lives, or for destroying them for not obeying orders? That was totally unnecessary--and made extra problems for Lot, who was minding his own business. If everyone is homosexual, the whole human race would die out in a generation without intervention because no children could be born that way--problem solved. But, aside that, what if some choose to be homosexual? (And, if everyone is celibate, it will also end the human race in a generation. Yet, where is Jehovah condemning celibacy?)
All this proves is that Jehovah is wicked.
Actually you could not be more wrong. This is a written account of history. Not an account of God commanding these things to happen. He didn't tell Lot to offer his daughters.
BrotherDan: I am guided by the Holy Spirit, will you take my writings as the word of god? Why not? Kind of circular isn't it?
First of all, divine Revelation has ceased. Also, if it hadn't ceased then I would examine what you had to say, and see if it could be demonstrated to be the word of god. So, no circular reasoning. The fact is, divine revelation ended with the apostles. The divine record is closed. So if you claim inspiration from the Holy Spirit, I don't even need to examine what you have to say.